Hi EP,

Would you care to delineate the clear moral gulf that separates 18 months of Iranian hostage taking from recent well-publicised USian extrajudicial and extraterritorial imprisonment and abuse (for what, 4 years and counting - so far)? Sure, diplomats are protected by the Hague convention, and the phrase "Great Satan" is so much more invigoratingly primitive than "Axis of Evil". Are those the only relevant distinctions?

I would strafe the rest of your rhetorical home turf grid square by grid square, but I've got about half a litre of dark rum twisting in my gut. Anyway, I'm Only Asking Because I Want To Know...

The litany of Evils for the Soviet Union is *FAR* worse !

"Evil Empire" is almost too mild a term.

Yes, Iran is as rational, and IMO, more so, than the Societ Union when it became a nuclear power. Stalin and Beria were as evil a pair as any (including Hitler and Himmler).

The US used proxies to kill tens of thousands of Soviets to get them out of a country they were occupying that the US did not want them in. The turning point was when the US escalated and gave the proxies shoulder launched SAMs.

BTW, AFAIK, zero Iranians have been suicide bombers in Iraq. The majority whose identity could be traced were our friends the Saudis (who are also the premier financiers for the large majority of attacks on US troops in Iraq and, with less certainity, in Afghanistan).

I have no fear of an Iranian first nuclear strike. They did not even "second strike" against Saddam's poison gas attacks. Just because a society is different does not make them evil per se.

And, given that the US destroyed their democracy (history shows a CIA budget of $2 million for exactly that purpose) and installed a despot, "Great Satan" is not an unreasonable characterization.

Best Hopes,

Alan

So apparently the political screed that beats the drums of war reaches many ears.

Iran, despite its belicose (and toothless) president shows no sign of expansionist intent, agressive militancy or propensety towards war. They haven't launched any first strikes on anyone, and the examples you bring up were the disorganized actions of thugs empowered during the fires of a revolution, hardly representitive of the current power structure in Iran.

That revolution is nearly thirty years dead, and one must remember, a direct reaction towards the fumbling agression of the US CIA's coup for the crime of the democratic government nationalizing the oil fields. As for the propensety for Iran's likelyhood of using nuclear weapons, its more elequantly investigated in Of Mullahs And MADness:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0519nj1.htm

Any link/reference for "Major political forces wanted the US to ally with the Axis."? I havn't heard of this before.

All religious fundamentalists are ignorant, childish whackjobs who choose curiosity-destroying lies to uncomfortable reality. Pretending one religious cult is better than another is elevating one delusion over another - an exercise in nonsense. ;) All humans have the potential for brutality, but this is especially true of religious minds, which usually lack critical thinking skills.

Hi All,

Here is yet another view on the role of the US use of nuclear weapons in regard to WWII.

http://www-instadv.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1414

"UCSB Historian Awarded Prestigious Prize for Acclaimed Book About the Role of the Atomic Bomb in Japan's Surrender in WWII..."

Excerpt from press release:

"While many Americans believe that World War II ended in the blinding flashes of the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, historians have hotly debated if the American use of the atomic bombs was justified. With their exclusive focus on the atomic bombings, however, historians have not fully examined other important factorsóthe entry of the Soviet Union into the war and a confused and divided Japanese leadership.

Examining in detail the deliberations of the Japanese leadership immersed in squabbling over how to end the war with the emperor system intact, Hasegawa claims the bombs were not the most decisive factor in Japan's decision to end the war. Only when the Soviets, jockeying with the United States for post-war influence in Asia, declared war and invaded Japanese-held Manchuria did the Japanese leadership capitulate to prevent falling under Soviet dominance.

"The Soviet factor has been treated as a sideshow by traditional history," said Hasegawa, who is fluent in Japanese, English, and Russian and studied documents and conducted interviews in Japan, the United States, and Russia in researching his book. "I bring it to center stage. I think the Soviet presence was crucial."